Pro and Optimality Theory 64

The analysis of silent NPs (pro) in optimality theory stems from a hedge in the principle of Case filter. According to this principle and viewing it from an OT perspective, an NP must have Case unless (and here is the hedge) it is null.

Therefore, silent NPs are restricted to caseless positions. The corresponding examples of pro we are dealing with are the following in (53) and (54):

64 In PP, it is conventional to represent the null subjects of nonfinite clauses in uppercase (PRO), called big pro, such as the one in (i), and other null pronouns in lower case (pro), called small pro or little pro, like in (ii). However, some authors do not treat the two as distinct and use pro to refer to both big pro and small pro. This is the view we will adopt here, though our main concern is subjects in finite clauses:

(i) I want PRO to go

(ii) pro necesitamos un libro sobre biología marina

(53) a. *pro want your history books b. pro quieren tus libros de historia

[pro-they want-3^rdps your books of history]

(54) a. my friends want pro to travel to Finland b. mis amigos quieren pro viajar a Finlandia

[my friends want-3^rdpp travel-infinitive to Finland]

Subject pro in finite sentences is not allowed in English (53a) but it is possible in Spanish (53b); while subject pro in nonfinite sentences is permitted in both languages (54a and 54b). All occurrences of pro as silent NPs contradict the Case filter since they have no Case.

Thus, the OT approach, though it maintains the nature of syntactic principles, allows violations to play a central role in the theory. We will first provide all the working terms (terminology) and then apply them to the specific study of subject pro (including nonfinite clauses but mainly focusing on finite ones). The reorganization of the analysis is based on two main assumptions:

1) constraints are universal and therefore English and Spanish, in the distribution of pro in this particular case, will be affected by the CONTROL, the FREE PRONOUN, the MAX(PRO) and the CASE constraint, as we will see; and 2) the ranking of these constraints is language-specific, which means that the

languages under analysis may and will in fact impose a different ranking, a different hierarchy, for the aforementioned constraints. This ranking will bring

[pro-we need-1^stpp a book on marine biology]

about the violation of some of these constraints in order to satisfy a highly- ranked constraint.

Specifically, the different ranking for English and Spanish for the distribution of pro is as in (55a) and (55b) respectively:

(55) a. English: CASE >> CONTROL >> FREE PRONOUN >> MAX(PRO) b. Spanish: CONTROL >> FREE PRONOUN >> MAX(PRO)

The constraints are defined in the following terms, according to Speas (1997):

(56) a. CASE: Case-marked NPs must appear in Case positions (e.g. subject position) b. CONTROL: a null pronoun must be controlled in its control domain⁶⁵

c. FREE PRONOUN: a null pronoun must be free in its governing category d. MAX(PRO): if pro occurs in the input, then its output correspondent is pro

As a null pronoun, pro is subject to both the CONTROL and the FREE PRONOUN constraint (principle B in the binding theory). Starting from the MAX(PRO) constraint, a faithfulness constraint, its interaction with the CONTROL constraint excludes pro from Case marked positions. This accounts for the presence of pro in non-finite clauses both in English and in Spanish; moreover, since overt NPs cannot occur in caseless positions (CASE constraint), an overt NP subject in non-finite clauses as in (57) will violate CASE:

65 The relevant term control in GB theory makes reference to a relation of referential dependency between an unexpressed subject (the controlled element) and an expressed or unexpressed constituent (the controller), the referential properties of the controlled element being determined by those of the controller (Bresnan 1982 and Haegeman 1994). In OT, the CONTROL constraint and the term itself

(57) a. *my friends want they to travel to Finland b. *mis amigos quieren ellos viajar a Finlandia

[my friends want-3^rdpp they travel-infinitive to Finland]

The interaction between CONTROL and FREE PRONOUN ensures that pro is obligatorily controlled when there is a c-commanding antecedent in its control domain. This will be the main difference between English and Spanish, which is reflected in the occurrence of pro in finite clauses in Spanish but not in English. In English the CASE constraint outranks all others (including the CONTROL constraint) since in this language pro is always restricted to caseless positions. In Spanish, on the contrary, the highest constraint is CONTROL since subject pro is allowed when it is controlled (by the subject rich agreement element in V).

In this way, the agreement mechanism can also be viewed from an OT perspective. As Speas (1997) shows, the presence of null subjects in Spanish and its absence in English is defined by the different ranking of constraints that places CONTROL as the highest constraint in Spanish, as opposed to CASE which is the highest constraint in English. As Harbert (1995) shows, Agreement functions as a controller of pro in Spanish, since Agreement is [+strong] and pro is within the domain of Agreement. Such a relationship is not possible in English since Agreement is [-strong].

are used somewhat differently, making reference rather to licensing or governing. This is the way we will use the term here.

The presence of subject pro in English (non-finite clauses) and in Spanish (non-finite and finite clauses) is seen in OT terms as a difference between the universal CASE and CONTROL rankings and their relative order in the ranking, which is language-specific.